Blog Wiki talk:Blogger's Code of Conduct versioning
Versioning and/or variants? I think a bloggers code of conduct is a good idea, but it needs to be handled with care if it's to gain widespread adoption and become a useful part of the blogging ecosystem. I think it will be highly unworkable if everyone shows the same badge and then everyone has an ongoing argument about what the badge actually means. I think a better long term solution would be a structure similar to creative commons, where there are different variants, and different versions of the variants. Just so long as the badges are distinct and link to a page with enough explanation, I think that would be a more effective long term solution than one set of rules that people keep arguing over. Individual bloggers can choose which particular variant/version they subscribe to, and know what their responsibilities are, and only have to worry about changing them the next time they check in at the central site and discover there's a new version/variant that suits them better. --Sethop 06:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC) :I was thinking the approach used by the Definition of Free Cultural Works could work well here. The community edits a draft version of the definition, and when there is consensus on the changes made, the definition is replaced with the new version and the version number is updated. There is a permalink to each version, so people can choose to link to a specific version of the definition, or to always link to the most recent community-approved version. Angela talk 06:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC) :: That looks like a pretty good approach, and obviously, it worked for them, although I note they are still at 1.0. The question of whether we need variants as well as versions is probably best addressed alongside the question of scope, which I'll open a new section for. --Sethop 07:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC) :: I can't imagine this working without Variants because most of these standards will not be appropriate for all blogs. Areas that will need variety: :: - Anonymous comments, pseudonyms: permitted or not :: - Anonymous comments: higher standards for politeness and verifiability? :: - Comment control: conditions for deletion; whether approval is required before they go live... :: - Dispute resolution methods {Dscrimshaw} I feel that people "anonymous" not having blogs should be permitted to comment, I did have only good experience with them and the casual readers too. 'julie70' Scope So we have: * is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others * is libelous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person, * infringes upon a copyright or trademark * violates an obligation of confidentiality * violates the privacy of others The question I have is whether all bloggers will want to take responsibility for all of these, and if they do not whether they should have a middle ground between "all" and "none" that they can subscribe to (hence my mention of the creative commons licences). And then there are the other clauses. I think the most important item here is clearly the first - that is certainly what is uppermost on many of our minds at the moment WRT Kathy Sierra. However I am sorely tempted to suggest that there should be a clause regarding disclosure standards, which was a big argument in the 'sphere a while back that never got satisfactorily resolved, or not that I noticed. I was taking part briefly, see my rant on Pay Per Post, but I was burning time that my startup needed so I never really followed up on it. It seems like a fairly closely related matter so I thought I would bring it up and see if people wanted to fold it in or save the disclosure discussion for another time. --Sethop 08:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Im not a fan of the code proposed but I'll try to post some constructive criticism here. The stuff about Trademarks and Patents seems pretty absurd to me. The only trademark example I could think of in comments would be spam, but spam doesnt seem to be covered in the document in general so why go off on a tangent about trademarks and patents here? Honestly this makes the code seem more like a list of every dull law that an uber-responsible blogger might want to think about, but to stretch that burden to all of the comments posted to their blog seems crazy to me. And how do you break patent law in blog comments? With great difficulty I presume. The EFF guide that was linked to is good though, I question whether the code should maybe just point to it in regard these matters rather than list every possible legal violation some text on the net could commit? I believe that stuff and other clauses in this code will hamper widespread adoption, because of how many people have fought for to have freedom from too much legal responsibility for anything someone else may publish tot heir site. There is a balance to be struck, and comparisons could be made with the likes of youtube and the costs to their business of having to police content more vigorously. Scares in the past with messageboard being held responsible for libel had many people fearing for the viability of self-pulishing masses and the communities that host them. And I so agree with Sethop about the 'disclosure standards' stuff. Either that or reduce the scope of this from being a 'bloggers code of conduct'. Because when I think of a code of conduct for bloggers, its got a lot of stuff in it about disclosure, ethical marketing, sponsorship, etc. But the code here seems heavily skewed towards policing the actions of others on the bloggers site, and not all that much about the routine conduct of the blogger themselves, outside crisis situations. The absence of such things from the code makes me very cynical, nearly all the rules in the code are 'easy' for bloggers to sign up to because its probably how they already behave. It places a big burden on the blogger to moderate others, but not to moderate themselves much in daily posts or business dealings or the ways they relate and inform their readers/viewers/listeners. Thanks for listening, sorry my contribution was mostly negative. Steve Elbows Scope Do not limit to blogging We have places to post beyond blogging. They maybe called groups, forums or something else. A Cyber Code of Conduct?